This essay points out that for much of the history of mankind wars and other natural and social measures reduced the population of mankind and kept it to a reasonable level. With the improvement in standards of living and less tendency to go to war most people are now surviving young adulthood to adulthood. The paper says that war could be used as national policies to prune the human population and get rid of undesirable persons, such as anti-social personalities and homosexual persons. This essay is an exercise in political realism and would not appeal to idealistic and sentimental people.
War As A Necessary Means For Cleansing The Human Race
For many persons war is a terrible thing, for at war people kill and get killed; war entails death and dying and folks generally do not want to kill or become killed; people do not want to die; if given the opportunity they want to live forever.
It is understandable for folks to wish to live forever. However, the reality is that the human body is made of matter; it is composed of the various elements, especially of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, and the elements themselves are composed of particles of the atom (electrons, protons, neutrons).
Whatever is composed must at some point be decomposed. The human body may live to be over 120 years but at some point time and the vagaries of the environment ages it. In old age the human body seeks rest and dies.
Death is inevitable for all animals, human beings included, and for trees; indeed, mountains, planets, stars, galaxies and the entire universe would at some point die and cease existing.
In the meantime people exist. Like other existent things in the universe, people come into existence in different forms; some are obviously in better form than others.
Some animals are born with medical issues and left alone, in the wild, die within a few days (even minutes) after their birth. The same goes for trees and human beings.
The genetic structure of some human beings disposes them to die early and some to live long. Some of those who live long have all sorts of medical disorders that make their living miserable experience.
Improved nutrition, medical intervention and improved public health in general has made the survival of most children possible; those who only a hundred years ago would have died shortly after birth now live to adulthood.
Many of those who manage to survive childhood and live into adulthood are demonstrably not as intelligent as others. The many are average in intelligence, the few are above average in intelligence and even fewer are gifted in intelligence (some are unintelligent and have to be taken care of by others … they cannot by themselves do what is necessary for their survival).
More importantly, some of those who manage to grow into adulthood are morally depraved. There are many people who are genetically disposed to anti social personality disorder, and there is nothing that we can do about it for they would remain sociopaths and psychopaths; they have less social conscience and will tell lies, cheat, steal and kill without qualms; they have no sense of guilt or remorse.
There are those born with genetic predisposition to craving to stick their penises into other men’s anuses or mouths (if women to stick their tongues into other women’s vaginas). These people are born that way and if you oppose them they become more belligerent and do it even more. You cannot prevent homosexuals from being homosexuals for their genes disposed them to do what they do, just as the genes of criminals dispose them to be criminals.
Sociological explanation of why these folks do what they do are largely useless for they do not stop any of them from doing what they do; no criminal has stopped being a criminal because of psychotherapy, no homosexual has changed because of psychotherapy; these people are biologically predisposed to their depraved life styles; folks should not make futile efforts to change them.
My seeming fatalistic conclusion is predicated on over twenty five years work as a psychotherapist who had the illusion that he could be instrumental in changing people; I learned that most human behaviors are predicated on folks inherited biological constitution. Once this lesson is accepted it became superfluous trying to change any human being; one just lets people be who their genes made them be; one stopped trying to play god and fix people.
All that we can do is posit laws that protect society and those who step outside the bounds of law are apprehended, tried by competent courts and punished; beyond that we must leave people to be themselves and do their things. As long as folk’s behaviors are not detrimental to other people what they do is none of my business.
It is here that war comes in. War is a means of pruning the human race. If every young generation (those between age 18 and 38) are given the opportunity to go to war, to go kill and get killed by their age cohorts the undesirable elements of human beings, such as criminals and homosexuals are eliminated or reduced to manageable proportion. At wars most homosexuals and criminals are killed and the few that manage to live into real adulthood (past age 40) tend to become moderated by age and experience.
War is a useful policy for getting rid of undesirable people in the human population. Without wars to get rid of homosexuals and criminals they are surviving at a higher and alarming rate. These folks have always existed in human society but in small numbers (less than two percent). Their overall numbers in the Western world is increasingly beyond the expected rates of pathology of the various diseases in human populations.
Generally, two percent of the population are either mentally ill or mentally retarded or have the various diseases that afflict mankind. Traditionally about two percent of the population was homosexuals and criminals but without wars these people are increasing in exponential proportions. The number of homosexuals and criminals in America probably is approaching five percent of the American population. This is very dangerous.
If the number of criminals and homosexuals were to become ten percent, one out of every ten persons, there is no doubt that America would collapse for the American society cannot exist with that many defective people in it.
Therefore, there ought to be wars to get rid of persons with proclivity to homosexuality and criminality (the two are actually the same…it is criminal thinking and behavior for a man to want to stick his penis into another man’s anus, to humiliate him, to turn him into his sex slave, to serve him).
My contention that criminals and homosexuals are defective people who ought to die is based on assumptions that I made. Are my assumptions true?
If I may ask: what is the truth? There is no apriori known truth. As far as society is concerned the truth is that which serves the goal of society.
Do homosexuals procreate to continue the race or are they mere animals who live to gratify the itches of their penises and vaginas?
Wherever and whenever these people proliferate in nations those nations become effeminate, weak and die. Note that before the collapse of the Greek and Roman Empires homosexuals and other undesirable elements in society were allowed to seem normal. The normalization and rountinization of deviancy took hold in Rome and Greece, as it is taking hold in the contemporary Western world. This acceptance of deviancy in the extant West is prelude to its fall and passing away as more vigorous and manly empires, such as the Chinese and Indians, take over leadership of the world.
These people are defective and are of no relevance to human evolution. As for criminals, although what constitutes crime is a social construct, is defined by society and in nature there is no criminality and all behaviors are permitted (in nature you can pluck a fruit and eat it without stealing from any one), the fact is that we live in society where folks expend energy to produce things and no one can be permitted to take what does not belong to him.
If criminality is legalized there will be no society; only chaos and anarchy would rain; we would return to Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) state of nature where all warred with all and life was nasty, brutish and short, and all lived in insecurity.
Without law and obedience of law there is no human society, period. Therefore, criminals are by definition anti society, and are socially undesirable.
Criminals enjoy the opportunity offered by wars, the opportunity to go kill and get killed and perhaps steal as much of other peoples properties as they could. If criminals yearning to destroy is gratified by having them join armies and go to wars and get killed that is good for society for that way society gets rid of some of them.
There will always be criminals and homosexuals in society but if we can keep them to less than two percent of the population, as are psychotics, society will be okay.
War has many other uses. During wars not only are people killed and the population reduced hence made appropriate for available food resource, scientific and technological developments tend to take a quantum leap. Think about the technological discoveries made during wars.
At war folks feel their backs against the wall, feel as if they are about to die and must do whatever they have to do to survive. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. When folk’s backs are against the wall and they have no avenue for exit, the only way that they can extricate themselves from danger is to produce scientific and technical innovations. Most of our technologies were generated during wars!
Wars improve social organizations. By necessity militaries are organized along a hierarchical pattern with leaders graded, from top to bottom. Better still, people rise to the top of militaries by merit, by dint of hard work (the army that promoted poor strategists and tactical persons to generalships lose wars). Wars select for the best men to rise to the top of military organizations.
Society is best organized if positions are obtained by merit; merit based aristocracy, not inherited aristocracy is the best form of human organization.
War reduces the human population. Any one with eyes can see that mankind is careening towards population disaster. Improvements in nutrition, medications and living conditions have led to the survival of most children. This is a new phenomenon in our lives. Prior to the twentieth century very few persons survived childhood. That way the population of the world was seldom more than two billion people. At the present there are seven billion people on earth.
At the rate people are reproducing themselves there is no doubt that we shall hit more than ten billion people soon. In the meantime the quantity of land remains the same. Although we are increasing food production by adding chemicals (fertilizers) to the soil there is no doubt that at some point the soil would rebel at being over chemicalized and start yielding less harvests. People then would start starving and dying off.
I doubt that even with the best science and technology planet earth is meant to comfortably support more than five billion people. There are just too many people, most of them doing nothing, living just because they are living.
Land is not meant to be over chemicalized to produce food to support a surplus and useless human population. This is even more so in tropical lands where the top soil is very fragile and is quickly exhausted and no longer could produce sufficient food to feed a growing population. Clearly, much of Africa falls into this category.
Black Africa is approaching a billion people. Nigeria alone is reportedly over 150 million people. Clearly, Nigeria’s soil is not meant to adequately support more than 50 million people making the other 100 million overburdening the soil, a surplus people that, sooner or later, would have to die off and return the population-land to rational equilibrium.
Many of those scheduled to die off in Africa will try to smuggle themselves to Europe and America, as they are already doing, and become economic refugees. Some will succeed but people in those continents to survive will soon stop the entry of African and other immigrants that over task their limited resources.
When push comes to shove folks engage in realistic thinking and behavior and that sometimes requires keeping competitors away from folk’s territories they want to survive. Africa cannot be allowed to continue being profligate in producing people and expect to export them to Europe and America to go survive and threaten the survival of those already over there.
In the past Africa exported her surplus people to Arabia and America as slaves; but folks no longer need slaves so no one would even buy Africans as slaves even if they offered themselves to be sold, as, no doubt, they would gladly do if starving is the alternative.
Some African pseudo-scholars (those love to blame everything on Europeans) have talked about how slavery under-populated Africa by shipping Africans to the Americas (and Arabia). What these academic quacks have not considered is that slavery was a means of making sure that Africa’s population was not excessive relative to the poor tropical soil Africans live on.
Africa must plan its population to attain balance between people and the soil’s capability to feed them.
Wars would reduce the population of the world. However, it is not a good idea to plan to reduce the human population through wars; we certainly can do better than that; we can plan the population of the world, know what the world’s optimal population is and plan for it.
If we keep producing many people, as we are currently doing, there is no doubt that we have to do something unusual, such as use nuclear weapons to eliminate the surplus population of unsustainable mankind.
In my judgment a strong leader should emerge in Africa and conscript most young Africans into the military and use them to unify the continent (my proposed Africa federation with each of the 500 large ethnic nationalities a state in the federation).
If in pursuit of this noble goal ten or even fifty million Africans are killed so be it. You cannot make omelets without breaking eggs.
You cannot unify a large continent like Africa without spilling considerable amount of blood.
Purposeful leaders should not be afraid to spill human blood. We are born and must die so dying should not be something folks are afraid of. What folks should desire is to die heroic deaths; death from fighting for the unification of Africa is heroic death.
One of the question folks have to answer is this: what are we living for? As far as I can see there is no purpose or meaning to our existence; we are living for nothing.
We live because the universe produced us and programmed into us the desire to live. Thus, we are motivated to live at all cost but live for what we do not know.
Nature programmed into us the fear of death but die we must. The most courageous type of living is a life in which the individual says that since there is no purpose to his life and to our lives in general that he is going to give his self a self set purpose and devote his behaviors to attaining it.
The unification of all black Africa, from Sudan and West Africa to South Africa is a noble goal that is worth living for, fighting and dying for.
So what are you living for? Do you know why you are living? You do not have a purpose for living. You live a meaningless and purposeless existence.
The lack of inherent meaning and purpose in our lives initially seems bad but in retrospect is a blessing for it makes freedom possible. If the universe had already given us a goal to live for there would be no freedom in our lives.
Our freedom lies in the fact that we do not have any purpose that we are slaves to and create purposes for ourselves and live for them.
It is not a bad idea that there is no inherent purpose and meaning to our lives; it is an opportunity for us to create purpose and meaning for ourselves.
Unifying Africa is a good purpose that could give the Africans’ lives meaning.
Some critics could point out that Adolf Hitler embarked on killing the mentally and physically handicapped, and also killed the mentally retarded and homosexuals and rationalized his behavior with the notion that he was merely getting rid of defective people. (See Hitler’s writings, especially his Mein Kampf, and Table/Secret Talks, edited by Trevor Roper.)
How is the policy suggested in this paper different from such Nazi dreadful behavior? It is different.
First, I am not suggesting that we go out and gather defective folks and gas them to death. No, they have a right to live. What is being suggested is using war to cleanse the human race of those with anti social behaviors such as criminals and homosexuals. If there are wars and these depraved folks are killed off at least they would die for a good course, the national interest.
I am not suggesting killing any group of people, such as Jews. Hitler made a tactical mistake in gassing Jews to death. He could have put them to the service of Germany in the military and other needed areas and perhaps that would have enabled him realize his foreign policy of lebensraum (obtaining living room for Germans in Eastern Europe and pushing the Slavic population into Siberia and or Mongolia).
This essay points out that for much of the history of mankind wars and other natural and social measures reduced the population of mankind and kept it to a reasonable level. With the improvement in standards of living and less tendency to go to war most people are now surviving young adulthood to adulthood. The paper says that war could be used as national policies to prune the human population and get rid of undesirable persons, such as anti-social personalities and homosexual persons.
This essay is an exercise in political realism and would not appeal to idealistic and sentimental people. It is of the genre that says that humanity is engaged in perpetual struggle for survival and that it is best for the fittest to survive; the fittest doing so in struggle, which war is the ultimate example of.
August 19, 2012